Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If a polynomial is irreducible in $R[x]$, where $R$ is a ring, means that it does not have a root in $R$, right?

For example, to say that a polynomial $f(x)\in\mathbb Z[x]$ is irreducible in $\mathbb Q[x]$ is equivalent to say that $f(x)$ does not have any rational root. I just want to make sure.

share|improve this question

4 Answers 4

up vote 13 down vote accepted

An element $a$ of any ring (including polynomial rings) is reducible if and only if there exist elements $b$ and $c$ such that

  • $a = bc$
  • $b$ is not invertible
  • $c$ is not invertible

In the special case of polynomial rings over fields, an element (i.e. a polynomial) $f$ is reducible if and only if there exist non-constant polynomials $g$ and $h$ such that $f = gh$. This is because the non-zero constants are precisely the invertible elements.

The condition of being irreducible if it doesn't have any roots is false. Consider, for example, the polynomial

$$ x^4 + 4 x^2 + 3 = (x^2 + 1)(x^2 + 3) \in \mathbb{R}[x] $$

When the coefficient ring is not a field, though, some coefficients are not invertible. The polynomial

$$ 2x \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$$

is reducible, because it is the product of $2$ and of $x$, both of which are not invertible. However, $2x \in \mathbb{Q}[x]$ is irreducible; the key difference is in this latter case, $2$ is invertible. Also, note that $2x$ has a rational root, despite being irreducible in $\mathbb{Q}[x]$.

share|improve this answer
1  
He is not asking whether not having a real root implies irreducibility. He is asking about the other way around. –  sxd Oct 27 '12 at 19:30
3  
He uses "equivalent" in his example question. –  Hurkyl Oct 27 '12 at 19:31
    
then his question is inconsistent :P –  sxd Oct 27 '12 at 19:51
    
This is because all non-zero constants are invertible. It is not because all non-zero constants are invertible but they are the only invertible elements of the field. –  Kits89 Oct 27 '12 at 21:56
    
@Kits: Good point. My comment was meant to focus on one direction, but it's easy enough to correct it to apply on both directions, so I shall do so! –  Hurkyl Oct 27 '12 at 22:11

What you're asking is almost true. An irreducible polynomial has a root if and only if it is linear. Proof:

Let $k$ be an integral domain. Assume that $f\in k[x]$ is irreducible, i.e. whenever $f=gh$, then either $g$ or $h$ is a unit. Assume that $a\in k$ is a root of $f$, i.e. $f(a)=0$. We perform polynomial division of $f$ by $(x-a)$, yielding $f=(x-a)g + r$ with $\deg(r)<\deg(x-a)=1$, meaning $r\in k$. Since $0=f(a)=r(a)$, it follows that $r=0$ and hence, $f=(x-a)g$ with $g\in k[x]$. But since $f$ is irreducible, this means that $g$ is a unit, i.e. $f$ is a linear polynomial.

share|improve this answer

Suppose $p(a)=0$ when $p(x)$ is a polynomial over a (commutative) ring. Then $p(x)=p(x)-p(a)$ and the fact that $x^n-a^n=(x-a)(x^{n-1}+ax^{n-2}+\dots+a^{n-1})$ for all $n$ means that $(x-a)$ is a linear factor of $p(x)$ - so if the polynomial has degree greater than 1 it is reducible.

share|improve this answer

To look at things another way $$x^4+5x^2+4=(x^2+1)(x^2+4)$$

is reducible over $\mathbb R$, but does not have any real roots.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.